U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2012, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Ohio
10,308 posts, read 5,626,657 times
Reputation: 5863
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
I wasn't talking about gay people in this case but about bisexuals. After reading Mircea's ignorant post I know that even atheists can have ridiculously bigoted ideas about how sexual orientation is merely about sexual gratification and we can choose to be with the other gender instead. I don't want more people to read his hateful ramblings so I'm not gonna quote him in response.
Quote:
The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation.
You'll have to pay to read the article, unless you are already a subscriber or you have access to a university library, or maybe your local library has a MedLit database of articles.

That study confirms what psychology, psychiatry, biology and physio-biology have been saying for more than a century, and that is that bisexuality has a psychological basis, not a biological or physiological basis.

Maybe the truth hurts.

I guess people who read scientific peer-reviewed articles in professional journals are "ignorant" and "hateful."

Enlightened...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12 View Post
1- anti-gay - not liking a person simply because they are gay.
Many people dislike other people or things for many reasons. Why is that a problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12 View Post
Homophobic- don't know if here is an official definition.
Then why use a word like that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12 View Post
It's heartbreaking to be faced with the choice of deciding to be true to yourself and who you really are or having to go against your nature to live a live that more people (and to some people's beliefs) that God would approve of.
So if you were a murderer or a thief, it would be better to be true to yourself, than to resist the temptation to murder or steal.

Got it.

Disliking...


Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2012, 10:28 PM
 
15,334 posts, read 5,029,936 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
You'll have to pay to read the article, unless you are already a subscriber or you have access to a university library, or maybe your local library has a MedLit database of articles.

That study confirms what psychology, psychiatry, biology and physio-biology have been saying for more than a century, and that is that bisexuality has a psychological basis, not a biological or physiological basis.

Maybe the truth hurts.

I guess people who read scientific peer-reviewed articles in professional journals are "ignorant" and "hateful."

Enlightened...

Mircea
Your quote is originally from an article in the NY Times with a layman's commentary about a study, not an article in a peer-reviewed Journal itself. This is obvious from googling your unlinked quote.

Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited - New York Times


Please provide a link to the study itself. You claim to have read the study in "scientific peer-reviewed articles in professional journals", so I'm sure you'll have no problem with a direct link to the abstract.

And please don't concern yourself about subscriptions to read full text articles- I have access to most professional Journals in this field.

I'll get back to you after I've read the study.

Last edited by Ceist; 01-20-2012 at 10:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2012, 11:17 PM
 
Location: Chicago - Bucktown
1,719 posts, read 1,456,109 times
Reputation: 852
Quote:


Many people dislike other people or things for many reasons. Why is that a problem?



Then why use a word like that?



So if you were a murderer or a thief, it would be better to be true to yourself, than to resist the temptation to murder or steal.

Got it.

Disliking...

Mircea

Wanna know why it's a problem? Because it's prejudice.

I'm glad you don't like gay people (which I am one) because you link homosexuality with pedophilia, rape, thievery, and murder. Guess what, I link prejudice with all of those things. Being gay is an orientation, not a perversion or a moral wrong like those other things are. Prejudice certainly is, and you seem to be spouting prejudice.

As far as the "enlightened" goes, just because someone says they are enlightened, doesn't mean they actually are. Being prejudiced is pretty much as opposite of enlightened as you can get.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2012, 11:33 PM
 
Location: The Netherlands
2,839 posts, read 1,888,544 times
Reputation: 3199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
You'll have to pay to read the article, unless you are already a subscriber or you have access to a university library, or maybe your local library has a MedLit database of articles.

That study confirms what psychology, psychiatry, biology and physio-biology have been saying for more than a century, and that is that bisexuality has a psychological basis, not a biological or physiological basis.

Maybe the truth hurts.

I guess people who read scientific peer-reviewed articles in professional journals are "ignorant" and "hateful."

Enlightened...

Mircea
Even ignoring the criticism Jaymax mentioned about your "peer-reviewed article", it doesn't change anything. So what if bisexuality is psychological rather than biological, who cares? What matters is that bisexual people can fall in love with someone from either gender and the fact that you reduce their feelings to merely sexual desire is very revealing of your narrow-mindedness.

Quote:
Many people dislike other people or things for many reasons. Why is that a problem?
It is a problem because it's entirely based on prejudice. Homosexuals and bisexuals are a very diverse group of people, from liberal to conservative, from black to white, from young to old, from religious to atheist, etc. To judge people solely based on their sexual orientation (over which they have no control) is despicable and no better than racism or sexism. If you can't see a problem with that it's very sad.

Quote:
So if you were a murderer or a thief, it would be better to be true to yourself, than to resist the temptation to murder or steal.
Are you kidding me? Are you honestly comparing gays and bisexuals to murderers and thieves? You're not as "enlightened" as you think Murderers and thieves cause harm to others, that is the difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2012, 12:53 AM
 
15,334 posts, read 5,029,936 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
You'll have to pay to read the article, unless you are already a subscriber or you have access to a university library, or maybe your local library has a MedLit database of articles.
Just finished downloading and reading the full text of the REAL study published in the Journal of Psychological Science. (not the NY Times article you quoted from)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That study confirms what psychology, psychiatry, biology and physio-biology have been saying for more than a century, and that is that bisexuality has a psychological basis, not a biological or physiological basis.
Thanks for confirming that you hadn't even read the actual study (just a layman journalist's opinion of it). The study DOES NOT AT ALL CONFIRM your statements. All it showed was that a small group of men in the study who identified as bisexual were actually more homosexual or more heterosexual.

In fact while looking up that particular 2005 study (which you hadn't even named), I found a very recent 2011 study with far better recruitment methods by one of the same researchers of the 2005 study (which was led by a doctoral student and did not have very stringent recruitment methods).

I shall quote from the 2011 study directly (and yes, you have to have access to be able to read the full text):

Quote:
Some men who have had sexual experiences with both men and women identify as bisexual. However, there is a long history of skepticism about whether these men also have substantial sexual attraction toward both sexes ( [Krafft-Ebing, 1886] and [Freund, 1974]). In part, this uncertainty exists because it is common for self-identified homosexual men to have first identified as bisexual, despite later professing they were never genuinely attracted to women (Rosario et al., 2006). Similarly, some bisexual men appear to have exclusively homosexual attractions, but identify as bisexual for reasons of perceived social acceptability (Stokes et al., 1997).
.......
If some men's bisexuality is motivated by sexual attraction to both sexes, this should be evident in their pattern of sexual arousal. A man's pattern of genital arousal, in particular, provides an objective and highly valid measure of his underlying sexual orientation (Bailey, 2009).
.....

On average, the bisexual men in our sample had distinctly bisexual patterns of both genital and subjective arousal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Maybe the truth hurts.
But you didn't tell the truth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
I guess people who read scientific peer-reviewed articles in professional journals are "ignorant" and "hateful."
No. Not at all. If you did, you might not hold the same un-informed opinions as you do now.

But that's not what you did.

You selectively quote-mined from an opinion piece by a journalist from the NYTimes, falsely claimed it was from a study, and grossly misrepresented what the research actually says to support the prejudiced views in your posts.

Which is is kind of 'ignorant and hateful' isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Enlightened...
Apparently not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Many people dislike other people or things for many reasons. Why is that a problem?
Sure they do. But why go to the extremes of lying about research? Why not just admit you don't like gay people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post

So if you were a murderer or a thief, it would be better to be true to yourself, than to resist the temptation to murder or steal.
What does this have to do with gays and lesbians or homosexuality?
It just shows your prejudice again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post

Got it.
I doubt it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post

Disliking...
That's obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post


Mircea
What you seem to have completely missed, is that the study your NY Times article referred to also had homosexual subjects who only responded to males and not females. This study and many others, show that homosexuality is NOT a 'choice' as you claim. Ironic isn't it? That the study behind your own quote proves what you are claiming is false?

Last edited by Ceist; 01-21-2012 at 01:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2012, 12:58 AM
 
15,334 posts, read 5,029,936 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Mappy View Post
Wanna know why it's a problem? Because it's prejudice.

I'm glad you don't like gay people (which I am one) because you link homosexuality with pedophilia, rape, thievery, and murder. Guess what, I link prejudice with all of those things. Being gay is an orientation, not a perversion or a moral wrong like those other things are. Prejudice certainly is, and you seem to be spouting prejudice.

As far as the "enlightened" goes, just because someone says they are enlightened, doesn't mean they actually are. Being prejudiced is pretty much as opposite of enlightened as you can get.
I think we're more 'enlightened' now about just how unenlightened the poster is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2012, 04:15 AM
 
Location: FL
1,727 posts, read 970,383 times
Reputation: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Many people dislike other people or things for many reasons. Why is that a problem?
Good question. Maybe.
Why is it a problem...it isn't always a problem. Yes, we all have opinions and we all have the right who we choose to associate with. We can't please all of the people all of the time. etc. etc. In that regard it is not a problem. It becomes a problem when we have gay bashing (definition - people literaly beating another person simply because they are gay, or the less physically violent, but also quite painful verbal abuse. We have people being physically and verbally abused on a daily basis simply because they aren't "like everyone else". That's when it becomes "a problem".

Quote:

Then why use a word like that?
Why? I don't know. It's just a commonly used word to describe that. I am sure it is not the only word that has ever been used in a way other than it's literal meaning.

Why ask why?


Quote:
So if you were a murderer or a thief, it would be better to be true to yourself, than to resist the temptation to murder or steal.

Got it.
Yeah, and that's a fair comparison. Murdering and stealing takes something away from someone else. Being gay is not taking anything away from anyone.

Which brings me to the more complicated question that many of us ask ourselves every day. When is one persons rights more important than another persons rights, or where do we draw the line. Not an easy question to answer. We all have a different opinon on that, probably.

Quote:

Disliking...

Mircea
Okay, fair enough. We all have the right to "dislike" whatever we want. We don't have the right to impose our views on other people. We don't have the right to be physically or verbally abusive because we dislike them.
We don't have the right to exclude them from certain things because we dislike them.

You don't have to invite a gay person to your garden party if you dont' want to. You have a right to invite whoever you want.

You don't (in my opinion) have the right to try to ban gay people from participating in certain events. I won't bring up some more of the things that come to mind because I don't want to take this discussion off in a whole new direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2012, 05:52 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,693 posts, read 17,365,389 times
Reputation: 11862
Yeah I mean many of them are silently disgusted by it...a lot of people now would say that even HAVING those opinions is homophobic. I don't know, but it's not hateful unless they're secretly hating gays and plotting to hurt them. But I mean the ones who do commit crimes, how many are because of what's said in the Bible and how many are just because they personally hate homosexuality because it disgusts them? Most true Christians, while they appear bigoted and homophobic to some, know that violence is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2012, 07:38 AM
 
10,320 posts, read 3,287,197 times
Reputation: 3346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Yeah I mean many of them are silently disgusted by it...a lot of people now would say that even HAVING those opinions is homophobic. I don't know, but it's not hateful unless they're secretly hating gays and plotting to hurt them. But I mean the ones who do commit crimes, how many are because of what's said in the Bible and how many are just because they personally hate homosexuality because it disgusts them? Most true Christians, while they appear bigoted and homophobic to some, know that violence is wrong.
Violence isn't a requirement to be homophobic. Having any type of irrational hatred or fear, or discriminating against gays, even if through the legal process constitutes homophobia.

There are lots of things that disgust people. Doesn't mean they go out their way to pass laws banning the thing that disgusts them, or taking every opportunity to tell the world what an abomination that thing is.

I also find disgust a strong word. I can't comprehend why people find 2 men or 2 women being in love or showing affection to be "disgusting". Unusual if you're not used to it, sure. And I can understand why they would not be interested in it if they are straight. But everyone I know who is secure with their sexuality is not phased in the slightest by gay people. There is no disgust or aversion, just "to each their own" type attitude. But then, all my friends are accepting liberals who have grown up around gay people, so maybe that's why.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2012, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Ohio
10,308 posts, read 5,626,657 times
Reputation: 5863
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
So what if bisexuality is psychological rather than biological, who cares?
It's about being mature and controlling urges. Philosophically speaking, just because one can do something, it doesn't logically follow that one ought to do something. That's the first thing you learn in Philosophy 101.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
It is a problem because it's entirely based on prejudice.
Says who? That's your belief, not your opinion (since an opinion is a conclusion draw from facts).

Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
Are you kidding me? Are you honestly comparing gays and bisexuals to murderers and thieves? You're not as "enlightened" as you think Murderers and thieves cause harm to others, that is the difference.
I never said anything about homosexuals.

I was referring exclusively to bisexuals and bisexuality. We don't have to compare bisexuals to murderers or thieves, we can compare them to alcoholics or drug addicts if you prefer.

Or we can compare bisexuals to zoophiliacs. A woman and a German Shepard, well, that's consensual, right? No harm there if that's the way she's "oriented."

Not kidding you...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Thanks for confirming that you hadn't even read the actual study (just a layman journalist's opinion of it). The study DOES NOT AT ALL CONFIRM your statements. All it showed was that a small group of men in the study who identified as bisexual were actually more homosexual or more heterosexual.
Quote:
Male bisexuality appears primarily to represent a style of interpreting or reporting sexual arousal rather than a distinct pattern of genital sexual arousal.
That indicates it's a psychological basis, not a physiological basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
This study and many others, show that homosexuality is NOT a 'choice' as you claim. Ironic isn't it?
No, what's ironic is that you didn't understand what I wrote.

I said absolutely nothing about homosexuals and have never said homosexuality was a choice.

I said bisexuality was a choice.

So your rant was all for naught, since you intentionally misrepresented and ignored the fact that I was not discussing homosexuals. If you want to rant, at least rant on the right topic.

That's rather disingenuous.

This also confirms it:

Quote:
The “bisexuality as heightened fluidity” perspective suggests that most women possess the capacity to experience sexual desires for both sexes, under the right circumstances. Hence, as time goes on, progressively more women should have the opportunity to become aware of this capacity and may adopt bisexual/unlabeled identities as a result.
Sorry, no link, but it's on PsychLit: Diamond, Lisa M., Female Bisexuality From Adolescence to Adulthood: Results From a 10-Year Longitudinal Study, Developmental Psychology 2008, Vol. 44, No. 1, 5–14.

Granted, the studies on bisexuality are limited, but even as Kinsey reported in both studies, the incidence is rare and suggests that bisexuality is psychological, and not biological or physiological.

In the study by Blumstein and Schwartz, bisexuals claimed to be attracted to an individual's persona and that gender was of no consequence. That's psychological. In the same study, females reported that their relationships with men and women fulfilled different needs. Again, physiological not biological or physiological.

To the extent that homosexuality may in part be psychologically based, there is a study by Zinik where homosexual men claimed to physically attracted to other men, but emotionally attracted to women. I find that suggestive, but not at all conclusive, especially in light of recent studies which indicate a physiological/biological basis for homosexuality (but not bisexuality).

Getting it right...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12 View Post
Yes, we all have opinions and we all have the right who we choose to associate with. We can't please all of the people all of the time. etc. etc.
Yes, don't even bother trying. If you learn anything in life, it's that you cannot please everyone at all times. Even if you gave people $1 Million, someone would gripe and moan because they didn't receive their $1 Million in twenty dollar bills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12 View Post
We have people being physically and verbally abused on a daily basis simply because they aren't "like everyone else". That's when it becomes "a problem".
Well, I don't particularly like red-necks or the French, but I don't drive around in a BTR-60 blasting them with a 76 mm cannon either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12 View Post
Yeah, and that's a fair comparison. Murdering and stealing takes something away from someone else. Being gay is not taking anything away from anyone.
No one said that it did. Alcoholism, drug addiction and gambling don't take away anything from others either do they?

I'm just pointing out flaws in people's arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12 View Post
Which brings me to the more complicated question that many of us ask ourselves every day. When is one persons rights more important than another persons rights, or where do we draw the line.
I don't know. I suppose that is the crux of the matter, or the crux of most matters.

Opining...


Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Mappy View Post
Wanna know why it's a problem? Because it's prejudice.
Funny you should mention that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Mappy View Post
I'm glad you don't like gay people (which I am one) because you link homosexuality with pedophilia, rape, thievery, and murder.
I did not mention gay people. I merely levied a criticism of bisexuality, stating that it was psychological and not biological or physiological.

Only a prejudiced person would assume I don't like gay people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Mappy View Post
Being prejudiced is pretty much as opposite of enlightened as you can get.
Then you might want to re-read your own quote.

Enlightened...

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:07 AM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top